I would be very careful before siding with Fred Durst on anything. He may be taking the "ethical higher ground of artistic integrity" I say bull****. I've been in business too damn long to know that NO-ONE does anything for free. It may be a cynical view but this is the music biz we're talking about, it's all about $$$$$$$ and lots of it. HE may have announced a free tour (the logistic nightmares surrounding who gets admitted and how may cause serious problems)but he will not be out of pocket for anything guaranteed.

As for the statement that he makes music for the fans again I find that statement ludicrous. Limp Bizkit are trend followers, there is nothing original there, if power metal was in Fred would implement that in a minute. He jumped on a trend, dumbed it down a la Kid Rock and watched all the lemmings file in with wallets in hand. He achieved fame by covering "Faith" for crying out loud.

There is more to this Napster deal than meets the eye (possible side deals with artists??) to endorse the site.

1. I'd side with Pat Robertson if he was gonna spend $1.8 million to underwrite my tour, and get me a ton of publicity, as Naspter is doing for Limp Durst.

2. The only ones making money off Napster are bands. Why? Because people like us download clips, like 'em, then buy the album. Napster itself, like most internet companies with the exception of eBay, is bleeding red ink. Some of my co-workers may be the only ones to make money off the internet -- they are called bankruptcy attorneys and boy are they excited right now about the 'net!!!

p.s. Not sure this has anything to do wih anything. I'm just riled up this afternoon because the SAINT are playing tonight. ("We're the youth bangers fight forever more. Grab your hammer, raise it up like Thor . . . . It's the march of the Saint . . . March of the Saint." Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaawwwww)

Well I guess I will be one to say Napster is okay, sure as long as they get the artist permission to allow there songs to be swapped. But until that day Im still gonna download. I mean I know in the sleeves it reads unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws. Isn't that what downloading is. I mean it would be hell to enforce but still it isn't right.

DTFM: being a lawyer, thought you would be behind Metallica on this one. [img]http://axl.hardradio.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

I haven't used Napstar (please don't trace my ip), but I do like the idea. I do agree that I think it probably does more good than harm and that this is just another nail in Metallica's coffin. At least for us that used to care.

To be honest, this board has sold me more music than any clips or downloads ever did. Take In Flames for instance, I downloaded some clips but it just didnt do it for me, but with all the talk here I just had to buy them. Now they are one of my current favs.

I haven't visited Napster but have downloaded entire albums from news groups. If I like it, it goes on my wish list at CDNOW. If I don't like it, it gets erased quickly.

This is all about the money. As stated, every small fry musician would do anything to get the jump start in his path to success. Until his accountant told him he was losing money instead of "building a fan base". Then he's being ripped off.

Part of this stems from the finite market for music. We tend to think of it as endlessly large and diverse. The record companies know otherwise. They know exactly how much money the public will spend this year on CDs, concerts, t-shirts, etc. They can do the demographics and figure out how many albums Metallica should sell and then extrapolate how many they won't sell because 40% of Napster users (a made up number) own CD burners. Then, they tell Metallica they could have made another $s if these poeple weren't stealing copyrighted material. Metallica gets upset and calls their attorney. Or their attorney sees an opportunity and calls Metallica to get their OK to pursue. Or the record company's attorney initiates the process on behalf of the record company.

The reasonable solution will be that Napster will have to have some permission from a band/record company to post the music on the site. Similar to radio stations that broadcast entire CD's during the wee hours of the morning. That way up-and-comers have the chance to get noticed and the big dollar stuff doesn't get played if the artist doesn't wish it to be played.

Metallica is only listening to the advice of their attorneys. It is unknown what is motivating the lawyers. They might be greedy or they might be obeying the wishes of the band. In the end, it will force some controls on the process to reduce piracy hopefully without infringing on the public's access to material that bands wish to be freely traded.

The sad part is that things in this country are being changed by litigation instead of legislation. How many things in life have changed because lawsuits are worse than jailtime? Suing McDonalds because someone spilled hot coffe on themselves? Suing gun manufacturers? Suing GM for exploding gas tanks on pickups? Metallica is just following the same path as many others. Rather than criminally prosecute the offenders, they sue them out of business as punishment.

It kinda makes me sick to think that I bought one of their albums because I downloaded some of the Metallica & Symphony tracks of the Berkeley, Ca. concert that I couldn't attend because I had to work. I liked some of the tunes, so I went out and bought their $28 multi-disk symphonic metal recordings (currently debating on getting rid of it...should I burn it or re-sell it on ebay?). If I had known Lars and the gang were going to do this, I wouldn't have even bothered...not to mention that I defended them to other metalheads online that bashed em for "selling out" because of the Symphonic endeavors.

While the comparisons to "tape trading" are correct, I don't recall trading tapes with 300,000 people. Isn't tape trading illegal as well? Just that it isn't so easy to track.

Wasn't it the trading of their unreleased track which brought this on? I feel they will win this suit. True, they don't need any more money, but it is the principal of the matter. Same goes for software. If it is illegal to copy Windows 2000 and give to your friends or post on your site for trade then it should be for music as well. Napstar is in this to make money. If they make money by providing a service of illegal activity they will lose.

If I made something, had it copywritted, and someone started giving it away for free, I would be a little upset.